https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
>
> Stage 1 has opened again.
And therefore I have submitted a cleaned-up version for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00472.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
> I have posted a WIP patch as:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01765.html
>
> I am in the process of cleaning it up for final submission once s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Consider LTO. Note that the issue is that while we remove assignments to
unused variables from calls at the caller side we never remove a never used
return value from a return statement. This keeps the comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
10 matches
Mail list logo
